Cases

REVISED MARCH 17, 2003 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS For the Fifth Circuit No. 02-40208 United States of America, Plaintiff/Appellee, VERSUS Fredi Neptal Ramirez-Velasquez; David Villarreal-Lara, Defendants/App

C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 322 F. 3d 868 (first judgment); 61 Appx. 919 (second judgment).

DUHÉ, Circuit Judge: Following a jury trial, Fredi Neptal Ramirez-Velasquez and David Villarreal-Lara were convicted of possession with *871 intent to distribute marijuana in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1) and (b)(1)(B), and Villarreal-Lara was convicted of conspiracy in violation of 21 U.S.C.

JUDGMENT PER CURIAM. This Cause having been heard and considered, it is *928OrdbRed and Adjudged: AFFIRMED. See Fed. Cir. R. 36.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit denied.

PER CURIAM: * The Federal Public Defender appointed to represent Carlos Alberto Esquivel has moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief in accordance with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), and United States v. Flores, 632 F.3d 229 (5th Cir.2011). Esquivel has not filed a response. We have reviewed counsel’s brief and the relevant po

Fourth Court of Appeals San Antonio, Texas MEMORANDUM OPINION No. 04-13-00319-CV Albert Ralph VELASQUEZ, Associated Transportation Services, LLC, and P5 Management Group, Appellants v. L

PER CURIAM: * The Federal Public Defender appointed to represent David Alejandro Gomez-Ramirez has moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief in accordance with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), and United States v. Flores, 632 F.3d 229 (5th Cir.2011). Gomez-Ramirez has not filed a response. We have reviewed counsel’s brief and the

PER CURIAM: * The Federal Public Defender appointed to represent David Alejandro Salinas Velasquez has moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief in accordance with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), and United States v. Flores, 632 F.3d 229 (5th *459Cir.2011). Salinas Velasqu

609 F.3d 743 (2010) UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Heliodoro VELASQUEZ-TORREZ, also known as Andre Ramirez-Gomes, also known as Heliodoro Velasquez-Torres, Defendant-Appellant. No. 09-40646. United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit. June 18, 2010. *744 James Lee Turner, Asst. U.S. Atty., Houston, TX, for U.

619 F.2d 789 6 Fed. R. Evid. Serv. 1248 UNITED STATES of America, Appellee,v.Andres HARO-ESPINOSA, Appellant.UNITED STATES of America, Appellee,v.Ernesto VELASQUEZ-RAMIREZ, Appellant.UNITED STATES of America, Appellee,v.Porfirio DIAZ-SAMANIEGO, Appellant.UNITED STATES of America, Appellee,v.Luis Carlos RUIZ-CHAVEZ, Appellant. Nos. 78-3341, 78-3361, 78

544 U.S. 1007 CONTRERAS-VELASQUEZ, AKA CONTRERAS, AKA RAMIREZ, AKA RAMIREZ CONTRERAS, AKA LEON CONTRERASv.UNITED STATES.RAMIREZ-TORRES, AKA ZAVALSA-RIVERAv.UNITED STATES. andREGIL-RODRIGUEZ, AKA FIGUEROA-RIOSv.UNITED STATES. No. 04-9294. Supreme Court of United States. April 25, 2005. 1

C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.

C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.

ORDER Upon consideration of Kevin A. Barnes, et al.’s unopposed motion to voluntarily dismiss their appeal, IT IS ORDERED THAT: (1) The motion is granted. (2) Each side shall bear its own costs.

PER CURIAM: * Appealing the Judgment in a Criminal Case, Raymondo Contreras-Velasquez raises arguments that are foreclosed by Almendarez-Torres v. United States, 523 U.S. 224, 235, 118 S.Ct. 1219, 140 L.Ed.2d 350 (1998), which held that a prior conviction is a sentencing factor under 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b)(2) and not a separate criminal offense, and by United States v. Pineiro, 377 F.

LINN, Circuit Judge. ORDER Kevin Barnes et al. (Barnes) notify the court that the United States Court of Federal Claims has requested that this court dismiss “the entire matter on appeal, without prejudice, and remand to this court for the purpose of addressing all outstanding matters.” We treat Barnes’ notification as a motion to remand. The United States has not responded. On

*982(Reported below: 87 Fed. Appx. 930); (85 Fed. Appx. 363); (83 Fed. Appx. 620); (85 Fed. Appx. 367); (82 Fed. Appx. 901); (83 Fed. Appx. 622); (82 Fed. Appx. 902); (83 Fed. Appx. 623); (82 Fed. Appx. 908); (82 Fed. Appx. 904); (83 F

*982(Reported below: 87 Fed. Appx. 930); (85 Fed. Appx. 363); (83 Fed. Appx. 620); (85 Fed. Appx. 367); (82 Fed. Appx. 901); (83 Fed. Appx. 622); (82 Fed. Appx. 902); (83 Fed. Appx. 623); (82 Fed. Appx. 908); (82 Fed. Appx. 904); (83 F

537 U.S. 902 MENDEZ-GUDINOv.UNITED STATES.PRUDENCIOv.UNITED STATES.RAMIREZ-FERNANDEZv.UNITED STATES.RODRIGUEZ-MANCERAv.UNITED STATES; andLUARGAS-VELASQUEZ, AKA VARGAS-VELASQUEZ, AKA MEZA-FUENTESv.UNITED STATES. No. 02-5225. Supreme Court of United States. October 7, 2002.